81 respuestas en este tema

[JCFR]

It depends on what you understand by "RPG" term. I have different opinion on this. For me roleplaying games are about, well, playing the role. This includes all visible aspects like appearance, clothes/armor, class and most importantly personality. "Hidden parts" like attributes or passive skills are far less important for me.

Aw, come on, these are core-features which belong to any Rpg. Yeah, visible custumisation IS important but playing Rpg is not just all about appearance and items.
To me, many of the best Rpgs of all times also have a deep skill and class-system. Games like Baldur's gate, Planescape Torment, Neverwinter Nights, Knights of the old Republic and even newer ones like Divinity OS and Pillars of eternity.

F.E.: in pillars of eternity i can create two Barbarians or two druids which play quite different, while in DAI, every character feels quite alike. Like: Ok, what do i got? Warrior with sword and shield? Ok, then i need, this, this, this and this skill for sure.
There's almost no alternative playstyle and nothing else in Terms of Skills, beside combat-ones.
It's sad, because that was one thing which made oldschool Rpgs (like BG) great. Every NPC and character-customisation-decision i took altered the way i had to play. Heavy or light Armor for Druid? Longsword or Bastardsword for Warrior? Bow,Crossbow or Daggers for Rogue? Should my ranger be a good hunter with high dexternity or two-weapons-warrior-like?

What do we have in Inquisition? Three classes with three specialistations (which influence falls quite short because of the limited UI), no non-combat skills (like forging, alchemy, pickpocket or anything) and attribute-points are added autmatic.
Man... thinking back, i thought Origins Rpg-system wasn't too deep but this? It's almost laughable shallow.

I say it again: Yes, visible customisation IS important, but i also want to have more detailed control of the developement of my character with more options given.

[Mr. Homebody]

Aw, come on, these are core-features which belong to any Rpg. 

 

Any old fashion Rpg perhaps. There are far thinner borders between game genres nowadays than in the past. And there is skill/class system in DA:I, just not as much expanded as in "old good games" or present retro games.

 

I am rather neutral in this. I loved Baldur's Gate and other similar titles but I'm ok with modern less "arithmetic" gameplay mechanic. I love to have choices in the matter of skill development but prefer fewer more unique and magnificent options.

 

To me, many of the best Rpgs of all times also have a deep skill and class-system. Games like Baldur's gate, Planescape Torment, Neverwinter Nights, Knights of the old Republic and even newer ones like Divinity OS and Pillars of eternity.

 

I still remember hundreds of spells in Baldur's Gate. I loved it since mages were always my favourite class. On the other hand most of these spells were rather useless compared to couple of "right ones". And warrior class development was far less expanded than in DA:I (basically hit points per level and sometimes proficiency point). KotoR has rather simple class system too. Didn't play Divinity OS and Pillars of Eternity yet.

 

I say it again: Yes, visible customisation IS important, but i also want to have more detailed control of the developement of my character with more options given.

 

I agree in theory. However we must remember that it was far easier to implement large amount of options in old fashioned games because of isometric view, voiceless protagonist, rather simplistic graphic and animations. Cinematic detailed experience makes it far more difficult.

 

Implementing non combat skills may be good idea. On the other hand it always remind me "press this dialogue option to win the whole dialogue" situation (available only if you picked "diplomacy" skill). In practice almost everyone will pick this skill, therefore it is rather illusory choice.

[JCFR]

Any old fashion Rpg perhaps. There are far thinner borders between game genres nowadays than in the past. And there is skill/class system in DA:I, just not as much expanded as in "old good games" or present retro games.

Debatable... yes, ok, i get your point and it ain't wrong, but... geez, how do i put it? Maybe it's because i grew up on oldschool Rpgs, maybe it's because BG was my first (and i even started pen&paper after that) - maybe it's because of this, that - to me - there's got to be more to earn the term "Rpg".
Those old fashined things definated for me, what made a game Rpg - especially D&D.

Inquisition is marketed as full fledged Rpg, which it doesn't feel like (at least not for me).Not with just two Armor-slots, two weapon-slots, four accessory-slots, eight UI-slots , 4-5 skill-trees (only for combat) ans still just three classes.
Inquisition is clearly made to appeal even to the minorest Rpg-enthusiasts (Like: "Man, i got enough of CoD after three hours MP... i wanna play something else, that's not too hard on your Mind. Oh, DA:I? Perfect.") and not fans of the genre.
 

I am rather neutral in this. I loved Baldur's Gate and other similar titles but I'm ok with modern less "arithmetic" gameplay mechanic. I love to have choices in the matter of skill development but prefer fewer more unique and magnificent options.

Matter of taste. I love to have lots of options, to experiment and biuld a quite unique character.
Yeah, BG was quite brutal for beginners and at first i had to learn it's rules, but that was kind of an appealing fact, too... like the difficulty in dark souls (which is not my taste i might add).
For every thought and effort i put into it, i was rewarded.
 

I still remember hundreds of spells in Baldur's Gate. I loved it since mages were always my favourite class. On the other hand most of these spells were rather useless compared to couple of "right ones". And warrior class development was far less expanded than in DA:I (basically hit points per level and sometimes proficiency point). KotoR has rather simple class system too. Didn't play Divinity OS and Pillars of Eternity yet.

Well, the magic-system in BG (and especially BG2) was never the ultimate best - that's true. But on the other hand you got many quite unique spells. I loved timestop and metorite-shower together with summoning monsters and stoneskin.
About the warriors... well it IS an old game so you have to put technical limits into consideration.
But any fight in BG requiered use of tactics - something i cannot really say about Inquisition - which is sad because that's what parties are for. And not to forget the epic sidequests in BG2.
KotoR: Yes, the classes were simple but still, there were quite a good amount of skills (passive and active).
And i can really recommend Divinity OS and pillars of eternity.
 

Implementing non combat skills may be good idea. On the other hand it always remind me "press this dialogue option to win the whole dialogue" situation (available only if you picked "diplomacy" skill). In practice almost everyone will pick this skill, therefore it is rather illusory choice.

Therefore Neverwnter Nights -for Example- had also bluff and intimidate beside diplomacy. There were passive skills, which influenced active like concentration, disciplin, athletic. There were class specific skills for bards, rogues, mages, rangers, druids, etc.
And in the Fallout-series skills can open different quest-solutions. None of that in AAA-Inquisition.

Also the most -MOST- innovative feature of Origins, the combinable Mage-spells (which i loved so much) are gone since DA2, eventhough i hoped so much, this feature would be expanded on. This is also one of the coolest things in Divinity:OS, spells which influence each other and the terrain around.

Lack of potential wherever i look... and that's exactly what i fear about ME4 as well. A game, which is essentially ME3 with different NPCs and nothing new added. No new classes, skills, combat-variations (like space combat - which i would love).
Just the same in a new, graphical advanced shell and slightly dumbed down in design. That's what i fear.

Bioware was once my most favourite developer - a developer that i didn't expect to fail. But after DA2, ME3 and DA:I i've kinda lost hope and trust.
Riight now, i've moretrust in Cdproject-red with Witcher3, than in Bioware with ME4.

[Mr. Homebody]

Debatable... yes, ok, i get your point and it ain't wrong, but... geez, how do i put it? Maybe it's because i grew up on oldschool Rpgs, maybe it's because BG was my first (and i even started pen&paper after that) - maybe it's because of this, that - to me - there's got to be more to earn the term "Rpg".
Those old fashined things definated for me, what made a game Rpg - especially D&D.

 

It seems we have similar gaming history. Baldur's Gate was my first "serious" rpg gaming experience and one of these games that make me very VERY nostalgic (far more than theoretically better BG 2). It's just that I perceive things differently when it comes to meaning of RPG term nowdays. 

 

As you said, it is matter of taste. In my personal opinion DA:I has a lot of flaws, although amount of skill/class options are rather enough for me. It is quality of these options that worries me.

 

I've made review of DA:I couple of weeks ago if someone is interested. (http://forum.bioware...ai-no-spoilers/). Although something is telling me that you would probably disagree with this review.

 

Yeah, BG was quite brutal for beginners and at first i had to learn it's rules, but that was kind of an appealing fact, too... like the difficulty in dark souls (which is not my taste i might add).

 

To be honest, from what I remember first BG was rather easy (things changed in BG 2 however ...pesky mages with their stone skins, mirror images, invisibility, globe of invulnerability, resistance to magical/non magical weapons and tons of other immunity spells).

 

Well, the magic-system in BG (and especially BG2) was never the ultimate best - that's true. But on the other hand you got many quite unique spells. I loved timestop and metorite-shower together with summoning monsters and stoneskin.
About the warriors... well it IS an old game so you have to put technical limits into consideration.

 

I loved magic system and image of mages in BG. Spellcasting was so mystical. Spells were something powerful, yet used strategically. It wasn't about shot enemy to death with hundreds of little fireballs. This is one of the things that I miss. Mages in Dragon Age literally shot with spells like with rifles. There is no mystery, no this "old fashion feeling").

 

But any fight in BG requiered use of tactics - something i cannot really say about Inquisition - which is sad because that's what parties are for. And not to forget the epic sidequests in BG2.

 

Tactical parts of old fashion rpgs were connected to isometric view to some degree. It takes a lot from RTS games afterall. TPP is more "individual", therefore lost some sort of tactical feeling is rather hard to avoid. Personally I prefer TPP because I like to perceive all these details from this perspective. And there is tactical view in DA:I...but it doesn't work well, softly speaking.

 

I agree about sidequest in BG2. These were "real" side quests. Now we have to just kill 10 rams to complete "quest" in DA:I. Sad MMO influence.

 

Bioware was once my most favourite developer - a developer that i didn't expect to fail. But after DA2, ME3 and DA:I i've kinda lost hope and trust.
Riight now, i've moretrust in Cdproject-red with Witcher3, than in Bioware with ME4.

 

For me Bioware was my favourite developer until DA:I (I like DA 2 and ME 3 despite flaws). Perhaps it still is but DA:I....it reminds me too much of single player MMO rather than game focused on storytelling. News about ME 4 are rather pessimistic unfortunately.

 

About the Witcher. I'm from Poland where this series was born (books and then games). I'm also fan of it. But to be honest Witcher doesn't have more of "RPG feeling" than Bioware games. Quite the contrary. There is far less choices when it comes to customisation of predefined protagonist and dialogues. I don't mind it  however because I am more interested in quality of options rather than quantity.

[JCFR]

About the Witcher. I'm from Poland where this series was born (books and then games). I'm also fan of it. But to be honest Witcher doesn't have more of "RPG feeling" than Bioware games. Quite the contrary. There is far less choices when it comes to customisation of predefined protagonist and dialogues. I don't mind it  however because I am more interested in quality of options rather than quantity.

Well Skill-system and character-developement wasn't so bad in TW1 and TW2. Not too deep but for an action-oriented Rpg quite good.
It gave you options to play the game differently - and that's just what a skill- system has to do.
What i love is this mature, dark feeling this series has (as did DA Origins). The atmosphere, the Npcs, the dialogues, the story, the non-linear quests - everything was soooo intense. i hoped inquisition would be a bit more like that but i never could really immerse as much aus with TW2.
I'm from Germany and i have to bow to Mr. Sapkowski for creating this Universe.
And i hope, this series will continue after TW3 (maybe with a sequel when we're finally allowed to create or own Witcher).

DA2 disappointed me because:
-No tactics (and it would have been possible to implement isometric camera - at least on PC)
-Only human-player-race
-Bad inventory-system
-minimal player-customisation
-No Decisions with consequences
-No combinable Mage-spells
-level recycling
-lame sub-quests

ME3 disapointed me because:
-Still shallow skill-system
-dumbed down classes (since every class could use any weapon available)
-No Npc-customisation(just three outfits per character)
-levels felt like pipes (go from point a to b and shoot inbetween - no real exploration)
-Normandy still just a hub
-Lame fetch-subquests
-No-effort Horde mode MP (not even a koop-campaign or different modes)
-And THAT Ending

What ME4 would need to make me go "oh YEAH!":
-a deeper Rpg-system (classes should play more different and maybe a bit more tactical)
-Original sub-quests
-weightful player-choices (with consequences)
-Wider levels which are worth exploring (not hopping around for shards or killing enemy-mobs)
-A player-ship which is more than a hub
-And what i really -REALLY- would love: Finally space combat (if bioware deosn't add that, i put all my hopes into Star citizen).

[Forsakentale]

For me Bioware was my favourite developer until DA:I (I like DA 2 and ME 3 despite flaws). Perhaps it still is but DA:I....it reminds me too much of single player MMO rather than game focused on storytelling. News about ME 4 are rather pessimistic unfortunately.

 

About the Witcher. I'm from Poland where this series was born (books and then games). I'm also fan of it. But to be honest Witcher doesn't have more of "RPG feeling" than Bioware games. Quite the contrary. There is far less choices when it comes to customisation of predefined protagonist and dialogues. I don't mind it  however because I am more interested in quality of options rather than quantity.

 

 

DAI WAS dumbed down and made accessible for console games (with the whole lack of long shortcuts and all). I still don't know if it was a conscious choice of MMO-ing the whole thing to get new players interested or just a hiccup, but it went far from what I loved on the first two games. The game looks beautiful, sure, but I really don't want a simplified RPG with way too many fillers and a grindy feeling to it (I'm very ok with ME's fetch quests if you compare them with DAI's).

 

I love The Witcher (both the books and games), but lets be reasonable, the first game combat was crap. It was fun and ad a lot of things to do, I found it better and more alive than Elder Scrolls, but when it comes to games that I take pleasure going back to, ME is #1. I know I already saw many things there is to see, and I usually play kinda the same gameplay, but the NPC writing and all those feels you get with them definitely wins me over.

[Mr. Homebody]

Well Skill-system and character-developement wasn't so bad in TW1 and TW2. Not too deep but for an action-oriented Rpg quite good.
It gave you options to play the game differently - and that's just what a skill- system has to do.

 

Let's then just define Dragon Age series as action oriented Rpg too. Problem solved. 

 

What i love is this mature, dark feeling this series has (as did DA Origins). The atmosphere, the Npcs, the dialogues, the story, the non-linear quests - everything was soooo intense. i hoped inquisition would be a bit more like that but i never could really immerse as much aus with TW2.
I'm from Germany and i have to bow to Mr. Sapkowski for creating this Universe.
And i hope, this series will continue after TW3 (maybe with a sequel when we're finally allowed to create or own Witcher).

 

Agree about maturity of the Witcher world. On the other hand I am fan of both dark fantasy (like Warhammer) and high fantasy (like Lord of the Rings). Dragon Age is definitely more "polite" than the Witcher.

 

DA2 disappointed me because:
-No tactics (and it would have been possible to implement isometric camera - at least on PC)
-Only human-player-race
-Bad inventory-system
-minimal player-customisation
-No Decisions with consequences
-No combinable Mage-spells
-level recycling
-lame sub-quests

Agree with these arguments, with the exception of "only human race". Personally I prefer limiting choice to human protagonist if that means more focused storytelling. It is rather hard to create multiple races for protagonist with decent voice acting, meaningful background and unique significance for the story.

 

Let's just compare Geralt/Shepard/Hawke to any of Inquisitors. At least slightly predefined protagonist will always be more interesting and memorable character. Inquisitor turned out to be painfully bland protagonist. Multiple races don't help, despite minor differences its just different texture for the appearance.

 

ME3 disapointed me because:
-Still shallow skill-system
-dumbed down classes (since every class could use any weapon available)
-No Npc-customisation(just three outfits per character)
-levels felt like pipes (go from point a to b and shoot inbetween - no real exploration)
-Normandy still just a hub
-Lame fetch-subquests
-No-effort Horde mode MP (not even a koop-campaign or different modes)
-And THAT Ending

 

To be honest, the only thing that really bothers me in ME 3 are fetch quests. Ending is rather bad but does not ruin the whole game. And I definitely have enough of exploration after DA:I and Mako in ME1. I don't really care about MP and prefer focusing on main campaign.

 

What ME4 would need to make me go "oh YEAH!":
-a deeper Rpg-system (classes should play more different and maybe a bit more tactical)
-Original sub-quests
-weightful player-choices (with consequences)
-Wider levels which are worth exploring (not hopping around for shards or killing enemy-mobs)
-A player-ship which is more than a hub
-And what i really -REALLY- would love: Finally space combat (if bioware deosn't add that, i put all my hopes into Star citizen).

 

Agree with everything with the exception of exploration (DA:I proved me that long-term wandering doesn't work well together with focused storytelling) and space combat (probably hard to implement in game, which isn't spaceship simulator already).

[Mr. Homebody]

DAI WAS dumbed down and made accessible for console games (with the whole lack of long shortcuts and all). I still don't know if it was a conscious choice of MMO-ing the whole thing to get new players interested or just a hiccup, but it went far from what I loved on the first two games. The game looks beautiful, sure, but I really don't want a simplified RPG with way too many fillers and a grindy feeling to it (I'm very ok with ME's fetch quests if you compare them with DAI's).

 

I wouldn't blame consoles for DA:I flaws. I am console player for many years and don't see problem with gaming platform. It is more about overall structure of the whole game. To be honest in my opinion most of the flaws in DA:I are connected to MMO bad influence and MMO games are rather PC specialisation.

[Forsakentale]

I wouldn't blame consoles for DA:I flaws. I am console player for many years and don't see problem with gaming platform. It is more about overall structure of the whole game. To be honest in my opinion most of the flaws in DA:I are connected to MMO bad influence and MMO games are rather PC specialisation.

 

I too play console games, I'm not saying they're sub-par to PC, but the small amount of buttons and shortcuts a console pad has needs the game to be easier to access and more straightforward and simplified when it comes to battle. No giant quick-action bar with 35 spells, potions and whatnots.

 

All in all, it was a terrible idea to make DAI so close to a MMO.

[Mr. Homebody]

I too play console games, I'm not saying they're sub-par to PC, but the small amount of buttons and shortcuts a console pad has needs the game to be easier to access and more straightforward and simplified when it comes to battle. No giant quick-action bar with 35 spells, potions and whatnots.

 

I have to disagree. I don't like "eight slots for skills" limitation in DA:I but it is not consequence of amount of buttons on console pad. It is probably by product of adding multiplayer and the need to make SP and MP compatible.

 

I have played DA:Origins on console and there weren't any skill limitations compared to PC version. You don't need PC interface to have acces to "35 spells, potions and whatnots". It just matter of design. Mages in old fashion 

Baldur's Gate have tons of spells to disposal and still max 3 quick slots.

 

The only part where DA:O on console is inferior to PC version is lack of tactical view (byproduct of limited RAM in past gen consoles from what I know) but otherwise all tactical options are available.

 

DA 2 is another story. To be honest it is surprisingly good game if you take into account extremely short developing time.

 

All in all, it was a terrible idea to make DAI so close to a MMO.

 

So true.

[Foxhound2121]

Honestly, I'm afraid they're already making the mistakes of DAI. I'm a bit worried after they put too much emphasis on exploration and the mako so far.

 

You ask any poll which one from the series is their favorite and ME2 always rocks the charts. ME2 wasn't popular because of exploration. It was storyline, characters, and action oriented gameplay. If they spend all their developing time trying to make a deserted sandbox just so we can "explore" some abandoned mountainside then character interaction is going to be zombified and nonplot fetch quests will be put in to fill in reasons why you need to explore. I'm not too excited in playing play Mass effect 4 the single player mmo grind to discover fetch quests with exploration as top selling point.

[wolfhowwl]

Honestly, I'm afraid they're already making the mistakes of DAI. I'm a bit worried after they put too much emphasis on exploration and the mako so far.
 
You ask any poll which one from the series is their favorite and ME2 always rocks the charts. ME2 wasn't popular because of exploration. It was storyline, characters, and action oriented gameplay. If they spend all their developing time trying to make a deserted sandbox just so we can "explore" some abandoned mountainside then character interaction is going to be zombified and nonplot fetch quests will be put in to fill in reasons why you need to explore. I'm not too excited in playing play Mass effect 4 the single player mmo grind to discover fetch quests with exploration as top selling point.

and world building.

 

But yes ME2 was a much tighter focused game than ME1 and was a stronger product for it.

[Undead Han]

I'm waiting to see how The Witcher 3 turns out, since like Bioware CD Projekt Red transitioned to a partially open world approach. If they can pull it off it would mean that a partially open world setting and a strong focus on story and characters isn't incompatible, and that DA:I only fell short in execution. If not however, I think it would be a cause for concern with ME: Next. We'd then be 0 for 2 in RPG developers trying to marry a strong focus on story and characters with open world exploration.

[Ahriman]

 

and war table "reading missions"

Hey, it wasn't so bad. At least it gave some feeling that Inquisition is bigger than the Inquisitor. I liked these management elements in NWN2, I liked most of it here, besides I don't have problems with reading "reading missions".

[Torgette]

I'm waiting to see how The Witcher 3 turns out, since like Bioware CD Projekt Red transitioned to a partially open world approach. If they can pull it off it would mean that a partially open world setting and a strong focus on story and characters isn't incompatible, and that DA:I only fell short in execution. If not however, I think it would be a cause for concern with ME: Next. We'd then be 0 for 2 in RPG developers trying to marry a strong focus on story and characters with open world exploration.

 

I wouldn't put all my eggs in The Witcher's basket, DAI already works if not for fetch quests and reading missions being too prevalent and the horse possibly being an afterthought.

[KCMeredith]

"Exploration" always sounds like "look at the pretty graphics and collect worthless collectibles" to me.

[DSiKn355]

With a key theme of "exploration" and apparently 100 planets then yeah... Expect the stupid fetch quests and miles of space and emptiness that was Dragon Age Inquisition.

 

Hopefully ME4 has more than 1% story to the 99% side quests.

 

[wolfhowwl]

I'm waiting to see how The Witcher 3 turns out, since like Bioware CD Projekt Red transitioned to a partially open world approach. If they can pull it off it would mean that a partially open world setting and a strong focus on story and characters isn't incompatible, and that DA:I only fell short in execution. If not however, I think it would be a cause for concern with ME: Next. We'd then be 0 for 2 in RPG developers trying to marry a strong focus on story and characters with open world exploration.

 

DA:I had scope problems same as ME1 with its uncharted worlds. They really should have slashed the number of zones and focused on bringing the remainder up in quality.

[Linkenski]

I'll take the mistakes of DAI over the mistakes of ME3 any day.

 

DAI is way more replayable.

I've played DA:I 2 times in a very short amount of time and I've played ME3 5-6 times since I got it in 2012. Mainly I just wanted to see how the different split paths of DA:I's campaign differed from each other, but as I expected it wasn't really that big of a deal and I feel like I've seen everything now.

 

Occasionally ME3 did actually surprise me on subsequent playthroughs. Autodialogue and progression-linearity is a big con but you should try looking up on Youtube, various different versions of scenes depending on choices and what squad you have for said missions. Sometimes a good chunk of hidden content emerges and it makes ME3 more replayable I think.

 

And while ME3's ending had great spectacle and embarrassing writing, Dragon Age Inquisition's ending had no spectacle and a merely mediocre conclusion.

 

I think they're kind of stale. I'd always pick DA:I's player-agency-centric dialogue wheel over ME3's autodialogue and limted responses, but I'd much rather have Mass Effect 3's main game and side-quest formula, as linear as it may be, over Inquisition's overly long and boring campaign that requires you to do MMO quests in between.

 

Both are actually good games. ME3 pissed me off, DA:I bored me. I felt respected as a player in DA:I and felt sidelined in ME3 and I thought both games had hokie introductions and bad endings. But between all that, they still somehow had redeeming qualities. I just think it's hard to generally say one game did everyhing better than the other.

[Iakus]

 

Both are actually good games. ME3 pissed me off, DA:I bored me. I felt respected as a player in DA:I and felt sidelined in ME3 and I thought both games had hokie introductions and bad endings. But between all that, they still somehow had redeeming qualities. I just think it's hard to generally say one game did everyhing better than the other.

Bolded right there is why I will always pick DAI over ME3. 

 

Heck I'm on my third playthrough of DAI right now and still noticing new dialogue options.  Do you know how long it took me just to complete a second  ME3 game?

[Linkenski]

Bolded right there is why I will always pick DAI over ME3. 

 

Heck I'm on my third playthrough of DAI right now and still noticing new dialogue options.  Do you know how long it took me just to complete a second  ME3 game?

I also have to say, while I thought DA:I's plot was generally underwhelming, I love Haven and I think I could keep doing partial playthroughs just to experience the Haven siege over and over again. Nah, JK, actually I find most of the first main missions with templars and mages and all that to be very tedious but I always think back to the mission leading up to finding Skyhold and the Adamant Siege and think, if the whole game was like that, then it would've been a really good game. Like, cut out 70% of the fetch questing and open environments and replace it with more main-story-centric quests and it would be better off.

 

I think Hinterlands, Storm Coast and Western Approach would've been more than sufficient and then just 50% more main quests, becuase every time I was playing the main quests I felt like I was playing a different game (and a much better game at that)

[wolfhowwl]

Mass Effect 3 is a much better game than Inquisition.

[Linkenski]

Even Bioware is aware that if they had released DA:I this year it wouldn't have had a chance to become GOTY in any category other than "best OST" right?

 

...RIGHT?!?

 

Truth is, last year was a year of meh and DA:I was just the one that resembled a properly done AAA title the most. Back to back with Arkham Knight, Witcher 3, Metal Gear Solid V or Bloodborne, this year, it would've likely been a flop.